On 2019-Apr-17, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> A reminder about these.
>
> Also, I suggest renaming "On Table" to "Table", for consistency with \di.
Thanks! Pushed all three.
Please feel free to add things like these to wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Open_Items
to serve as reminders for the project as a
A reminder about these.
Also, I suggest renaming "On Table" to "Table", for consistency with \di.
Justin
>From e275a0958f0f2cd826e9683fb24b6f757d0fe6c7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Justin Pryzby
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2019 18:24:22 -0500
Subject: [PATCH v2] not necessary to join pg_class, we use
On 2019/04/09 2:37, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Apr-08, Amit Langote wrote:
>
>> I noticed that the size shown in the output of both \dP+ and \dPt+ does
>> include toast relation sizes of (leaf) partitions, because
>> pg_table_size(), which is used by all the queries that
>>
On 2019-Apr-08, Amit Langote wrote:
> I noticed that the size shown in the output of both \dP+ and \dPt+ does
> include toast relation sizes of (leaf) partitions, because
> pg_table_size(), which is used by all the queries that
> listPartitionedTables sends to the server, does:
>
> /*
>
Hi,
On 2019/04/08 12:59, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> ne 7. 4. 2019 v 21:13 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera
> napsal:
>> Added to the docs, and pushed.
>>
>
> Thank you very much
Thank you Alvaro for pushing this to completion. Also, thank you Justin
and Pavel for reviewing it till the last minute.
ne 7. 4. 2019 v 21:13 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera
napsal:
> On 2019-Apr-07, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> > ne 7. 4. 2019 v 20:27 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera <
> alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>
> > napsal:
>
> > > In order for this to display sanely, I added the "Parent name" column
> if
> > > either the "n"
PFA patch intended to have been previously attached...
Hmm..maybe it should say
|RELATION'S partitions is also displayed, along with the RELATION'S
|description.
On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 03:13:36PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Apr-07, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> > ne 7. 4. 2019 v 20:27 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera
> > napsal:
>
> > > In order for this to display sanely, I added the "Parent name" column if
> > > either the "n" flag is shown or a
On 2019-Apr-07, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> ne 7. 4. 2019 v 20:27 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera
> napsal:
> > In order for this to display sanely, I added the "Parent name" column if
> > either the "n" flag is shown or a pattern is given (previously it only
> > appeared in the former case).
>
> I am
ne 7. 4. 2019 v 20:27 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera
napsal:
> On 2019-Apr-07, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> > ne 7. 4. 2019 v 19:16 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera <
> alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>
> > napsal:
> >
> > > Here.
> >
> > + 1
>
> BTW I'm not sure if you noticed, but I removed the error message "no
>
On 2019-Apr-07, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> ne 7. 4. 2019 v 19:16 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera
> napsal:
>
> > Here.
>
> + 1
BTW I'm not sure if you noticed, but I removed the error message "no
partitioned relations found" when the result was empty. This was
mimicking \d behavior (which was
ne 7. 4. 2019 v 19:16 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera
napsal:
> Here.
>
+ 1
Pavel
>
> --
> Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>
Here.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
commit 39766894a30d2cbfea7904cb04e9bb0ed398b76c
Author: Alvaro Herrera
AuthorDate: Sun Apr 7 07:59:12 2019 -0400
CommitDate: Sun Apr 7 12:51:13 2019
ne 7. 4. 2019 v 18:07 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera
napsal:
> On 2019-Apr-07, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> > ne 7. 4. 2019 v 17:27 odesílatel Justin Pryzby
> > napsal:
>
> > > I think there's an issue with showing indices. You said that \dP
> should be
> > > same as \dPti, no? Right now, indices are
On 2019-Apr-07, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> ne 7. 4. 2019 v 17:27 odesílatel Justin Pryzby
> napsal:
> > I think there's an issue with showing indices. You said that \dP should be
> > same as \dPti, no? Right now, indices are not shown in \dP, unless a
> > pattern is given. I see you add that
ne 7. 4. 2019 v 14:15 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera
napsal:
> So how about the attached version?
>
+1
Pavel
>
> --
> Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>
ne 7. 4. 2019 v 17:27 odesílatel Justin Pryzby
napsal:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 08:15:06AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > So how about the attached version?
>
> +1
>
> I found a few issues.
>
> \dP+ didn't work. Fix attached.
>
> +static const SchemaQuery
On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 08:15:06AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> So how about the attached version?
+1
I found a few issues.
\dP+ didn't work. Fix attached.
+static const SchemaQuery Query_for_list_of_partitioned_relations = {
So how about the attached version?
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/psql-ref.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/psql-ref.sgml
index 2bc8bbc2a74..3587abce8b2 100644
---
so 6. 4. 2019 v 6:36 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera
napsal:
> On 2019-Apr-05, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > Looking at the current proposal, I think I like \dPn+ very much -- it
> > shows the aggregated size of all partitioned tables. But I think \dP
> > (without the +) is almost completely useless.
On 2019-Apr-05, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Looking at the current proposal, I think I like \dPn+ very much -- it
> shows the aggregated size of all partitioned tables. But I think \dP
> (without the +) is almost completely useless. I'm not really sure about
> having to add the "n" flag, but I
On 2019-Apr-04, Amit Langote wrote:
> > When you
> > have many partitions (and we're now making the system scale into the
> > thousands for a single partitioned table), they clutter the output
> > making it unusable. So, rather than think as \dP as "the way to show
> > the aggregate size of a
Hi Alvaro,
On 2019/04/03 21:01, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Apr-03, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>
>> Hello.
>>
>> At Wed, 3 Apr 2019 12:55:06 +0900, Amit Langote
>> wrote in
>>
>>> On 2019/04/03 12:02, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
\dPn doesn't show children because the are of 'r' relkind.
st 3. 4. 2019 v 14:01 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera
napsal:
> On 2019-Apr-03, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>
> > Hello.
> >
> > At Wed, 3 Apr 2019 12:55:06 +0900, Amit Langote <
> langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote in <
> ee892049-0fe4-afe6-cbbf-31cf44fa8...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> > > On 2019/04/03 12:02,
On 2019-Apr-03, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> Hello.
>
> At Wed, 3 Apr 2019 12:55:06 +0900, Amit Langote
> wrote in
>
> > On 2019/04/03 12:02, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> > > \dPn doesn't show children because the are of 'r' relkind. And
> > > \dPn * doesn't show type for children.
> ...
> > I
Hello.
At Wed, 3 Apr 2019 12:55:06 +0900, Amit Langote
wrote in
> On 2019/04/03 12:02, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> > \dPn doesn't show children because the are of 'r' relkind. And
> > \dPn * doesn't show type for children.
...
> I think it's intentional that leaf partitions are not shown,
Horiguchi-san,
Thanks for taking a look.
On 2019/04/03 12:02, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> \dPn doesn't show children because the are of 'r' relkind. And
> \dPn * doesn't show type for children.
>
> create table pa (a int, b int) partition by range (a);
> create table c1 partition of pa for
At Tue, 2 Apr 2019 22:49:25 -0300, Alvaro Herrera
wrote in <20190403014925.GA9976@alvherre.pgsql>
> Hi Amit
>
> On 2019-Apr-03, Amit Langote wrote:
>
> > Thanks. I'm getting an error while applying v12:
> >
> > patching file src/bin/psql/po/es.po
> > Hunk #1 FAILED at 12.
> > 1 out of 2
Hi Amit
On 2019-Apr-03, Amit Langote wrote:
> Thanks. I'm getting an error while applying v12:
>
> patching file src/bin/psql/po/es.po
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 12.
> 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/bin/psql/po/es.po.rej
Uh, I certainly did not intend to send the es.po part of
Hi Alvaro,
On 2019/04/03 4:42, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Apr-02, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> Something is not right:
>
> Another thing that was not right is that translated_columns was being
> marked static, and modified in the function; so if you called \dP twice
> where one called for
On 2019-Apr-02, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Something is not right:
Another thing that was not right is that translated_columns was being
marked static, and modified in the function; so if you called \dP twice
where one called for translation and the second not, the second time
we'd also translating
Something is not right:
alvherre=# \dP t
List of partitioned tables or indexes
Esquema | Nombre | Dueño | Tipo| On
table
On 2019-Mar-13, Amit Langote wrote:
> + if (show_indexes)
> + {
> + objects_name = gettext_noop("indexes");
...
> + if (pattern)
> + /* translator: objects_name is "index", "table" */
> + psql_error("Did not find any
On 2019/03/28 18:31, Amit Langote wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2019/03/28 18:12, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 2019-03-22 01:21, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> On 2019/03/22 2:23, David Steele wrote:
On 3/14/19 6:19 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2019/03/14 2:11, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>
>>> I've
Hi,
On 2019/03/28 18:12, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2019-03-22 01:21, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2019/03/22 2:23, David Steele wrote:
>>> On 3/14/19 6:19 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
On 2019/03/14 2:11, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>> I've attached v11 of the patch, which merges most of
čt 28. 3. 2019 v 10:12 odesílatel Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> napsal:
> On 2019-03-22 01:21, Amit Langote wrote:
> > On 2019/03/22 2:23, David Steele wrote:
> >> On 3/14/19 6:19 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> >>> On 2019/03/14 2:11, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> > I've
On 2019-03-22 01:21, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2019/03/22 2:23, David Steele wrote:
>> On 3/14/19 6:19 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> On 2019/03/14 2:11, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I've attached v11 of the patch, which merges most of Justin's changes and
> some of my own on top --
On 2019/03/22 2:23, David Steele wrote:
> On 3/14/19 6:19 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2019/03/14 2:11, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>>
I've attached v11 of the patch, which merges most of Justin's changes and
some of my own on top -- documentation and partition size column names.
>>
>> Maybe,
On 3/14/19 6:19 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
On 2019/03/14 2:11, Pavel Stehule wrote:
I've attached v11 of the patch, which merges most of Justin's changes and
some of my own on top -- documentation and partition size column names.
Maybe, we should set this ready for committer then?
There
On 2019/03/14 2:11, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> st 13. 3. 2019 v 8:02 odesílatel Amit Langote
> napsal:
>> Not a native speaker either, but I like Justin's changes. Although I
>> noticed that he missed changing one sentence to look like other similar
>> sentences.
>>
>> What Justin did:
>>
>> -
st 13. 3. 2019 v 8:02 odesílatel Amit Langote
napsal:
> On 2019/02/22 1:41, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > čt 21. 2. 2019 v 0:56 odesílatel Justin Pryzby
> > napsal:
> >
> >> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 10:52:35PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >>> I like your changes. I merged all - updated patch is
On 2019/02/22 1:41, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> čt 21. 2. 2019 v 0:56 odesílatel Justin Pryzby
> napsal:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 10:52:35PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> I like your changes. I merged all - updated patch is attached
>>
>> I applied and tested your v10 patch.
>>
>> Find attached
čt 21. 2. 2019 v 0:56 odesílatel Justin Pryzby
napsal:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 10:52:35PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > I like your changes. I merged all - updated patch is attached
>
> I applied and tested your v10 patch.
>
> Find attached some light modifications.
>
I have not any
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 10:52:35PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I like your changes. I merged all - updated patch is attached
I applied and tested your v10 patch.
Find attached some light modifications.
Thanks,
Justin
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/psql-ref.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/psql-ref.sgml
pá 15. 2. 2019 v 7:50 odesílatel Amit Langote
napsal:
> Hi Pavel,
>
> Thanks for updating the patch.
>
> On 2019/02/08 17:26, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > I renamed originally calculated column "size" to "direct partitions size"
> > .. see Alvaro's comment. Then I introduced new column "total
Hi Pavel,
Thanks for updating the patch.
On 2019/02/08 17:26, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I renamed originally calculated column "size" to "direct partitions size"
> .. see Alvaro's comment. Then I introduced new column "total partitions
> size" that is calculated like you propose.
>
> Now the
čt 7. 2. 2019 v 9:51 odesílatel Amit Langote
napsal:
> Hi Pavel,
>
> Thanks for sending the updated patch.
>
> On 2018/12/19 15:38, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > út 18. 12. 2018 v 8:49 odesílatel Amit Langote <
> >> On 2018/12/17 17:48, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >>> I can imagine new additional flag -
čt 7. 2. 2019 v 16:03 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera
napsal:
> On 2019-Feb-07, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> > Your example
> >
> > postgres=# \dPtn+
> > List of partitioned tables
> > ┌┬┬───┬─┬┬─┐
> > │ Schema │ Name │ Owner │
On 2019-Feb-07, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Your example
>
> postgres=# \dPtn+
> List of partitioned tables
> ┌┬┬───┬─┬┬─┐
> │ Schema │ Name │ Owner │ Parent name │Size│ Description │
>
čt 7. 2. 2019 v 11:25 odesílatel Amit Langote
napsal:
> Hi,
>
> On 2019/02/07 18:08, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > čt 7. 2. 2019 v 9:51 odesílatel Amit Langote <
> langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> >> \dPn seems to work fine, but I don't quite understand why \dPn+ should
> >> show the sizes only for
Hi,
On 2019/02/07 18:08, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> čt 7. 2. 2019 v 9:51 odesílatel Amit Langote
>> \dPn seems to work fine, but I don't quite understand why \dPn+ should
>> show the sizes only for nested partitions of level. Consider the
(correcting words of my previous email: ... of level 1.)
>
čt 7. 2. 2019 v 9:51 odesílatel Amit Langote
napsal:
> Hi Pavel,
>
> Thanks for sending the updated patch.
>
> On 2018/12/19 15:38, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > út 18. 12. 2018 v 8:49 odesílatel Amit Langote <
> >> On 2018/12/17 17:48, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >>> I can imagine new additional flag -
Hi Pavel,
Thanks for sending the updated patch.
On 2018/12/19 15:38, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> út 18. 12. 2018 v 8:49 odesílatel Amit Langote <
>> On 2018/12/17 17:48, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> I can imagine new additional flag - line "n" nested - and then we can
>>> display nested partitioned
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 07:38:16AM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I am sending updated patch.
Moved to next CF.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
út 18. 12. 2018 v 8:49 odesílatel Amit Langote <
langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> napsal:
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for updating the patch.
>
> On 2018/12/17 17:48, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > new update of this patch
>
> Documentation portion of this patch still contains some typos that I
> mentioned
Hi,
Thank you for updating the patch.
On 2018/12/17 17:48, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> new update of this patch
Documentation portion of this patch still contains some typos that I
mentioned before here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1c83bb5c-47cd-d796-226c-e95795b05551%40lab.ntt.co.jp
+
Hi
pá 30. 11. 2018 v 20:06 odesílatel Pavel Stehule
napsal:
>
>
> čt 29. 11. 2018 v 7:58 odesílatel Michael Paquier
> napsal:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 03:47:11PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> > I have not feel well when I see in one report numbers 40 and 16, I see
>> much
>> > more
čt 29. 11. 2018 v 7:58 odesílatel Michael Paquier
napsal:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 03:47:11PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > I have not feel well when I see in one report numbers 40 and 16, I see
> much
> > more comfortable when I see 24 and 16, but for this I need a different
> > perspective
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 03:47:11PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I have not feel well when I see in one report numbers 40 and 16, I see much
> more comfortable when I see 24 and 16, but for this I need a different
> perspective
>
> What do you think about it?
Maybe, my thought is that this would
čt 22. 11. 2018 v 15:29 odesílatel Michael Paquier
napsal:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:42:14PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > Here my position is strong. \dP for me doesn't mean "tables or
> > indexes" - it means "partition tables with total relation size". I
> > don't see any sense to show
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:42:14PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Here my position is strong. \dP for me doesn't mean "tables or
> indexes" - it means "partition tables with total relation size". I
> don't see any sense to show tables and indexes in one report.
Please let me disagree on that
čt 22. 11. 2018 v 1:51 odesílatel Michael Paquier
napsal:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > st 21. 11. 2018 v 17:21 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera <
> alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>
> > napsal:
> >> Hmm, these tests are not going to work, because they have "pavel" in the
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> st 21. 11. 2018 v 17:21 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera
> napsal:
>> Hmm, these tests are not going to work, because they have "pavel" in the
>> expected output.
>
> I was blind, thank you for check
+create table testtable_apple(logdate
st 21. 11. 2018 v 17:21 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera
napsal:
> Hmm, these tests are not going to work, because they have "pavel" in the
> expected output.
>
I was blind, thank you for check
fixed
Regards
Pavel
>
> --
> Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL
Hmm, these tests are not going to work, because they have "pavel" in the
expected output.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
út 20. 11. 2018 v 8:50 odesílatel Michael Paquier
napsal:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 11:43:16AM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > should be fixed now.
>
> Here are some notes on the last version.
>
> + " FROM pg_inherits i\n"
> Missing schema qualification.
>
>
fixed
> +
út 20. 11. 2018 v 9:14 odesílatel Amit Langote <
langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> napsal:
> On 2018/11/20 16:50, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Testing the feature, \dP shows all partitioned relations, still does not
> > show the relationship when multiple levels are used. Could it make
> > sense to
On 2018/11/20 16:50, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Testing the feature, \dP shows all partitioned relations, still does not
> show the relationship when multiple levels are used. Could it make
> sense to also show the direct parent of a partitioned table when
> verbose mode is used?
Yeah. I think it
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 11:43:16AM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> should be fixed now.
Here are some notes on the last version.
+ " FROM pg_inherits i\n"
Missing schema qualification.
+ case 'P':
+ if (cmd[2] == 'i')
+ success =
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 09:33:58AM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> po 19. 11. 2018 v 3:42 odesílatel Michael Paquier
> napsal:
>> Sorry for degressing, but could you also update \di at the same time so
>> as it shows "partitioned index"? listTables() should be switched to use
>> partitioned tables
po 19. 11. 2018 v 3:42 odesílatel Michael Paquier
napsal:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 11:17:37PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > To be certain I'm not going against some old decision, I digged up
> > Amit's old patches. Turns out he submitted psql's describe.c using the
> > term "partitioned
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 11:17:37PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> To be certain I'm not going against some old decision, I digged up
> Amit's old patches. Turns out he submitted psql's describe.c using the
> term "partitioned table" on August 10th [1] and then based on a
> discussion where Robert
On 2018/11/19 11:17, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Jul-23, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>> p.s. Another patch can be replacement of relation type from "table" to
>> "partitioned table"
>>
>> postgres=# \dt+
>> List of relations
>>
On 2018-Jul-23, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> p.s. Another patch can be replacement of relation type from "table" to
> "partitioned table"
>
> postgres=# \dt+
> List of relations
> +++---+---+-+-+
> | Schema |
po 5. 11. 2018 v 7:20 odesílatel Amit Langote
napsal:
> On 2018/11/04 4:58, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > here is a patch
>
> Thank you, Pavel.
>
> Here are some comments.
>
> I mentioned it during the last review, but maybe you missed it due to the
> other discussion.
>
> +the pattern are
On 2018/11/04 4:58, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> here is a patch
Thank you, Pavel.
Here are some comments.
I mentioned it during the last review, but maybe you missed it due to the
other discussion.
+the pattern are listed. If the form \dP+
+is used, a sum of size of related
pá 2. 11. 2018 v 6:17 odesílatel Amit Langote
napsal:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018/11/01 2:19, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > st 31. 10. 2018 v 7:34 odesílatel Amit Langote <
> > langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> napsal:
> >> On 2018/10/31 15:30, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >>> st 31. 10. 2018 v 3:27 odesílatel Amit
Hi,
On 2018/11/01 2:19, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> st 31. 10. 2018 v 7:34 odesílatel Amit Langote <
> langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> napsal:
>> On 2018/10/31 15:30, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> st 31. 10. 2018 v 3:27 odesílatel Amit Langote <
>>> langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> napsal:
+
st 31. 10. 2018 v 7:34 odesílatel Amit Langote <
langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> napsal:
> On 2018/10/31 15:30, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > st 31. 10. 2018 v 3:27 odesílatel Amit Langote <
> > langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> napsal:
> >> +appendPQExpBufferStr(, "\nWHERE c.relkind IN ('p')\n");
>
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 08:41:45AM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I am not sure - I remember one private test that we did on our patches, and
> this tests fails sometimes on 32bits. So I afraid about stability.
That could be possible as well. I think that you are right to be afraid
of such
st 31. 10. 2018 v 8:38 odesílatel Michael Paquier
napsal:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:34:02PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> > On 2018/10/31 15:30, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> I am not sure. Has not sense run this test over empty database, and some
> >> bigger database can increase running.
> >>
>
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:34:02PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/10/31 15:30, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> I am not sure. Has not sense run this test over empty database, and some
>> bigger database can increase running.
>>
>> More the size can be platform depend.
>
> Okay, sure.
Well, that
On 2018/10/31 15:30, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> st 31. 10. 2018 v 3:27 odesílatel Amit Langote <
> langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> napsal:
>> +appendPQExpBufferStr(, "\nWHERE c.relkind IN ('p')\n");
>>
>> I wonder if we should list partitioned indexes ('I') as well, because
>> their size
st 31. 10. 2018 v 3:27 odesílatel Amit Langote <
langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> napsal:
> On 2018/10/30 20:03, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > út 30. 10. 2018 v 7:52 odesílatel Amit Langote <
> > langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> napsal:
> >> Could one of you please revise the patch to use that function to
On 2018/10/30 20:03, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> út 30. 10. 2018 v 7:52 odesílatel Amit Langote <
> langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> napsal:
>> Could one of you please revise the patch to use that function to produce
>> the output of \dP+?
>>
>
> here it is.
>
> It is based on Mathias's patch. Although
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 09:24:01PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> It is based on Mathias's patch. Although we can use
>> pg_partition_tree on PostgreSQL, we still should to support
>> PostgreSQL 10, 11 where this function is not available
>
> Ah, I forgot that psql will need to consider 10 and 11
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 8:04 PM Pavel Stehule wrote:
> út 30. 10. 2018 v 7:52 odesílatel Amit Langote
> napsal:
>> The patch to add the pg_partition_tree() function was just committed:
>>
>> Add pg_partition_tree to display information about partitions
>>
Hi
út 30. 10. 2018 v 7:52 odesílatel Amit Langote <
langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> napsal:
> Hi Mathias, Pavel,
>
> On 2018/08/17 12:26, Mathias Brossard wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:46 AM Pavel Stehule
> >>
> >> This is question - maybe we can support older partitioning based on only
Hi Mathias, Pavel,
On 2018/08/17 12:26, Mathias Brossard wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:46 AM Pavel Stehule
>>
>> This is question - maybe we can support older partitioning based on only
>> inheritance - and the query can be more exact on PostgreSQL 10 and newer.
>>
>> Please, send any
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 06:09:05PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> This looks nice, although I haven't looked at the patch yet. Also, as you
> said, we could later replace the method of directly querying pg_inherits
> by something else.
Yes, at the end we may be looking at something like that which
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:46 AM Pavel Stehule
wrote:
> čt 16. 8. 2018 v 5:52 odesílatel Mathias Brossard
> napsal:
>
>> I do have a feedback on the implementation. The code tries to support
>> older PostgreSQL server versions when declarative partitions were not
>> supported before version 10
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, failed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:tested, passed
Hi,
I'm with Melanie Plageman running the SVPUG Patch Review
Hi
čt 16. 8. 2018 v 5:52 odesílatel Mathias Brossard
napsal:
> The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
> make installcheck-world: tested, failed
> Implements feature: tested, passed
> Spec compliant: not tested
> Documentation:
2018-07-25 11:09 GMT+02:00 Amit Langote :
> Hi Pavel.
>
> On 2018/07/23 20:46, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I am sending a prototype of patch. Now, it calculates size of partitioned
> > tables with recursive query. When any more simple method will be
> possible,
> > the size calculation
Hi Pavel.
On 2018/07/23 20:46, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am sending a prototype of patch. Now, it calculates size of partitioned
> tables with recursive query. When any more simple method will be possible,
> the size calculation will be changed.
>
> postgres=# \dt+
>
Hi
I am sending a prototype of patch. Now, it calculates size of partitioned
tables with recursive query. When any more simple method will be possible,
the size calculation will be changed.
postgres=# \dt+
List of relations
2018-06-20 10:03 GMT+02:00 Amit Langote :
> On 2018/06/20 16:50, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > 2018-06-20 9:44 GMT+02:00 Amit Langote :
> >> Do you mean \dt continues to show size 0 for partitioned tables, but
> with
> >> the new option (\dtP+) shows the actual size by aggregating across
> >>
On 2018/06/20 16:50, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2018-06-20 9:44 GMT+02:00 Amit Langote :
>> Do you mean \dt continues to show size 0 for partitioned tables, but with
>> the new option (\dtP+) shows the actual size by aggregating across
>> partitions? +1 to such a feature, but we need to agree on an
2018-06-20 9:44 GMT+02:00 Amit Langote :
> On 2018/06/20 16:21, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > 2018-06-20 7:44 GMT+02:00 Amit Langote :
> >
> >> On 2018/06/02 0:15, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> >>> I think we should at least display "Type" as "partitioned table" for a
> >>> partitioned table, so that it's
On 2018/06/20 16:21, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2018-06-20 7:44 GMT+02:00 Amit Langote :
>
>> On 2018/06/02 0:15, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> I think we should at least display "Type" as "partitioned table" for a
>>> partitioned table, so that it's easy to understand why the size is 0;
>>> partitioned
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
